Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart: general infrastructure

[Oren Laadan]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > I have to wonder if this is just a symptom of us trying to do this the
> > > > > wrong way.  We're trying to talk the kernel into writing internal gunk
> > > > > into a FD.  You're right, it is like a splice where one end of the pipe
> > > > > is in the kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts on a better way to do this?  
> > > > Maybe you can invert the logic and let the new syscalls create a file
> > > > descriptor, and then have user space read or splice the checkpoint
> > > > data from it, and restore it by writing to the file descriptor.
> > > > It's probably easy to do using anon_inode_getfd() and would solve this
> > > > problem, but at the same time make checkpointing the current thread
> > > > hard if not impossible.
> > > Yeah, it does seem kinda backwards.  But, instead of even having to
> > > worry about the anon_inode stuff, why don't we just put it in a fs like
> > > everything else?  checkpointfs!
> > One reason is that I suspect that stops us from being able to send that
> > data straight to a pipe to compress and/or send on the network, without
> > hitting local disk.  Though if the checkpointfs was ram-based maybe not?
> >
> > As Oren has pointed out before, passing in an fd means we can pass a
> > socket into the syscall.
>
> If you do pass a socket, will it handle blocking correctly? Getting
> deadlocked task would be bad. What happens if I try to snapshot into
> /proc/self/fd/0 ? Or maybe restore from /proc/cmdline?

Hmmm... these are good points.

Keep in mind that our principal goal is to checkpoint a whole container,
rather then a task to checkpoint itself (which is a by-product). Of course
your comments apply to a whole container as well.

In both cases, I don't think that blocking on a socket is a problem; the
checkpointer will enter a TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. Where is the deadlock ?
Writing or reading to/from /proc/self/... likewise - the programmer must
understand the implications, or the program won't work as expected. I don't
see a possible deadlock here, though.

For example - writing to /proc/self/fd/0 is ok; the state of fd[0] of that
task will be captured at some point in the middle of the checkpoint, so
after restart one cannot assume anything about the file position; the rest
should work.

Oren.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/